Australia: Liability For Manufacturers Who Supply Unmerchantable Goods - A Novel Statutory Cause Of Action Available To Australian Plaintiffs

Last Updated: 28 April 2005
Article by Amanda Turnill


Until recent times, product liability claimants in Australia typically relied upon negligence to establish a right to damages, pleading in the alternative misleading or deceptive conduct under section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ("the TPA"), and a breach of one or more of the statutory causes of action against manufacturers and importers of defective products contained within Part V Division 2A and Part VA of the TPA.

However, restrictions on the availability of common law negligence, combined with the likely continuing limitation of personal injury claims under section 52 of the TPA, make it inevitable that the battle ground for future litigation will involve these alternative statutory causes of action contained within Part V Division 2A (sections 74B and 74D) and Part VA of the TPA.

Although there is a relative paucity of case law defining the extent of these provisions, some recent decisions of the Federal Court provide some guidance. The case law that does exist reveals that Division 2A of Part V is being interpreted in a very broad way and may impose more stringent standards on manufacturers than common law negligence.

In this article, I will give a general overview of the statutory cause of action available under section 74D in Part V Division 2A and concentrate on a recent decisions regarding that section. Section 74D makes a manufacturer or distributor liable for the consequences of selling goods which are not of merchantable quality. This is cast in terms of whether the product is reasonably fit for the purpose for which goods of that kind are normally bought.

Why are section 74D claims of interest to US manufacturers and importers into Australia?

Allegations made pursuant to section 74D of the TPA are interesting for the following reasons:

  1. This cause of action is likely to be rather unusual from the US perspective.
  2. It is a "strict liability" cause of action, which means that the plaintiff will not be required to demonstrate that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care and skill, which is the central inquiry when proving a claim for common law negligence.
  3. It is a cause of action which could be alleged by all users of a product which is found to be defective, not merely those who have sustained an injury. This is because their claim is that they were all exposed to an increased risk of injury in using the product and thus are entitled to compensation pursuant to this statutory cause of action.
  4. Lack of merchantability could be argued by a plaintiff’s lawyer where a product has been withdrawn or recalled from the market, especially if the reason for the product recall was related to safety issues. It could be alleged, in such circumstances, that the withdrawal or hazard alert amounts to a concession as to lack of merchantable quality.

Overview of Division 2A of Part V of the TPA

The statutory causes of action established by Division 2A of Part V are considered to be "strict liability" causes of action.

The policy behind strict liability is to make it easier for plaintiffs to prove their claims, especially where a defendant may possess much of the evidence that a plaintiff would seek to rely upon. However, strict liability still requires a plaintiff to demonstrate a basis for the defendant's liability. This means that the plaintiff must demonstrate that the product purchased or used has some quality or qualities, as a result of the design, manufacture or packaging of the product, which entitle the plaintiff to receive compensation.

The causes of action stated in Division 2A of Part V enable consumers to claim breach of warranties, such as merchantability (section 74D) and fitness for purpose (section 74B), against manufacturers and importers with whom they have no privity of contract. Although infrequently relied upon until recently, these causes of action have been available since 1978.

A breach of Division 2A provisions gives rise to a statutory right to compensation, rather than damages under common law. In Zoneff v Elcom Credit Union (1990) 94 ALR 445 and (1990) ATPR 41-058, it was held that this statutory compensation can include a stress and anxiety component.

Strict liability – key elements of section 74D of the TPA

Section 74D of the TPA imposes liability on manufacturers or importers who supply goods which are not of merchantable quality. To establish a claim for damages under section 74D, a consumer must prove:

  1. a chain of supply of a product from a manufacturer to a consumer;
  2. that the supply of goods was made "in trade or commerce";
  3. that the goods are not of merchantable quality; and
  4. that the consumer has suffered loss or damage by reason that the goods are not of merchantable quality.

Who is a manufacturer?

"Manufacturer" has a special expanded meaning for the purposes of section 74D to include not only the actual manufacturer of the goods but also a corporation which:

  • manufactures the goods;
  • holds itself out to the public as a manufacturer;
  • applies its name or brand to the goods;
  • permits someone to promote the goods as those of the corporation; or
  • imports the goods where the actual manufacturer has no presence in Australia.

As a consequence, an action is available against an Australian corporation which permits its name or brand to be applied to goods it supplies, regardless of whether it was responsible for the manufacture of the goods.

Who is a "consumer"?

A person is deemed to have acquired particular goods as a "consumer" if:

  • the price of the goods did not exceed the prescribed amount (AU$40,000); or
  • where the price exceeds that amount, the goods were of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use;


  • the person did not acquire the goods or hold themselves out as acquiring them for resupply.

It should be noted that for section 74D to apply, the goods in question must be "of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption" (section 74A(2)(a) of the TPA). This test is an objective one, which means that the actual purpose of the person acquiring the goods is irrelevant.

It is arguable that some products such as medicines or vaccines would not be ordinarily acquired in that way. There is US legislation which specifically excludes from the definition of consumer products "drugs" intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease (see section 2052(a)(H) in title 15 Chapter 47 of the US Code as defined in section 321(g) Federal, Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 21 USC). There is no similar express exclusion in the TPA.

What is merchantable quality?

Typically, the most contentious element of the cause of action is whether the goods are of merchantable quality. They are of merchantable quality within the definition of section 74D(3) if they are as fit for the purpose for which goods of that kind are commonly bought as it is reasonable to expect having regard to:

  1. any description applied to the goods by the corporation;
  2. the price received by the corporation for the goods (if relevant); and
  3. all other relevant circumstances.

What is reasonable for the consumer to expect?

While purpose and the degree to which purpose is accomplished by the particular goods are regularly the subject of expert evidence, courts have demonstrated reluctance to admit expert evidence or consumer survey evidence to prove "reasonable expectations" as to fitness for purpose.

In Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2000) 102 FCR 307 at para [533-34], Lindgren J considers the appropriate manner of assessing reasonable expectations in relation to merchantable quality. His Honour states:

"The words 'as it is reasonable to expect' suggests a question as to the identity of the person or persons, the reasonableness of whose expectation is in question and is to be determined by the court. Possible contenders are:

(1) the consumer or other person who suffers loss or damage;

(2) a reasonable consumer placed as that actual consumer or other person was;

(3) a reasonable bystander (in effect, the court).

In my opinion . . . it is the second or third category of person whose reasonable expectation is called into service by the statute, and in my opinion a reasonable bystander would seek to put himself or herself in the position of a reasonable consumer placed as the actual consumer or other person was."

The court considered that the expectations of the reasonable consumer could not be measured against the specialist technical knowledge of the distributor and that it was impossible to be sure that the product distributed was in fact safe for the purposes for which it would primarily be used. Instead, the court itself stood in the shoes of the reasonable consumer, or reasonable bystander in the position of the reasonable consumer, and independently assessed the consumer's reasonable expectations of fitness for purpose.

In that case, contamination of oysters with Hepatitis A rendered them unmerchantable as, in the absence of a warning, the reasonable consumer would expect the oysters to be safe to eat. Thus, the test of merchantable quality is an objective test, which asks: what is reasonable for a consumer in the position of the actual consumer to expect?

Balancing consumer protection against the social utility of products

Division 2A of Part V focuses heavily on consumer expectations without any allowance for balancing the risk of harm against the social utility of the product. Commenting on section 74D of the TPA, Lindgren J in Graham Barclay Oysters at para 538 states that:

"It is not unreasonable for the legislature to adopt a policy of requiring a manufacturer to meet the reasonable expectations of consumers as to the fitness of the manufacturer's goods for their purpose or purposes. Consistently with that policy, if the manufacturer knows that it cannot be sure to meet those expectations, it must cease manufacturing, or if possible, ensure that the consumer has agreed to bear the risk".

Whether a standard based upon consumer expectations strikes an appropriate balance between consumer protection and the social utility of manufacturing products is an issue that requires detailed policy analysis. It is evident, however, that the court's interpretations of consumer expectations under Division 2A of Part V are leaning towards a much more onerous standard of responsibility than was imposed upon manufacturers by common law negligence.

Any warnings provided by the manufacturer or importer in the get-up, labelling, packaging or product inserts will be very important, as they may result in the consumer’s otherwise reasonable expectations being rendered unreasonable.

Defences to a section 74D claim

It should be noted that section 74D does not apply in the following circumstances:

  • where the goods are not of merchantable quality (according to section 74D) because of an act or default of another person or a cause independent of human control occurring after the goods left the control of the corporation;
  • where the defect was specifically drawn to the consumer's attention before making the contract for supply of the goods to the consumer; and
  • if the consumer examined the goods before that contract was made and such examination ought to have revealed the defect.

Again, this raises the importance of any warnings provided by the manufacturer or importer to the consumer and the adequacy of those warnings.

The Courtney decision - no injury yet the product was held to be unmerchantable

One of the most recent Federal Court decisions regarding the scope of section 74D concerns pacemakers. In June 2000, a class action was commenced in the Federal Court on behalf of persons who had received pacemakers that were the subject of a hazard alert issued earlier that month. The respondents to the proceedings included Medtel Pty Limited, the Australian distributor of the pacemakers.

In Courtney v Medtel Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 36 ("Courtney"), Sackville J considers the application of merchantable quality under sections 74B and 74D of the TPA.

The case was a representative action claiming that a particular batch of pacemakers manufactured by Pacesetter Inc (incorporated in the US with no Australian business), were not of merchantable quality under s 74D of the TPA. Also argued was that the goods were unsuitable under section 74B of the TPA, but this was not discussed in detail, as both sides agreed that if the s 74D action failed, the s 74B action also could not succeed. Medtel Pty Ltd, the Australian distributor of the product (incorporated in New South Wales), was also a respondent.

The pacemakers that were affected by the fault only occurred within a certain period of time. The pacemakers had a problem with their manufacture known as "dendritic growth". Sackville J was satisfied that this dendritic growth was caused by the use of "yellow spool solder" in the product, rather than "blue spool solder" which was used in later unaffected products. These pacemakers were subject to a "Hazard Alert" from the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

Although there was no fault with the yellow spool solder it left a "tenacious crystalline residue" that the blue spool solder did not. Sackville J concluded that when the residue was combined with other contaminants (the use of a "de-soldering wick" leaving other contaminants in the product), this caused a build-up within the pacemaker that led to "dendritic growth", which is essentially a short circuit in the product, causing the life of the battery to decrease dramatically. His Honour was satisfied that this was the cause in the majority of the cases within the class.

Not all pacemakers in the representative action (including the applicant Mr Courtney's) were subject to the actual fault, as only incorrectly soldered pacemakers requiring a de-soldering wick had dendritic growth. However, the fault could not be detected without explanting the pacemaker. This gave rise to three classes of people within the representative action. The first, to which the applicant belonged, was those that had had pacemakers explanted but had found no fault. The second group were those whose pacemakers failed before it was explanted, and the third group were those who had not had the product explanted.

Merchantable Quality

In discussing "merchantable quality", His Honour stated that it was unnecessary to look at the common law definition of merchantability (under the Australian Knitting Mills v Grant principle - (1933) 50 CLR 387), for the purposes of 74D(1). The appropriate starting point was the language of s 74D itself.

He discussed the s 74D(3) test in its three parts; that the product is "fit"; "for the purpose... for which goods of that kind are commonly bought"; and "whether the goods supplied are fit for the purpose... identified as is reasonable to expect". (Clearly also loss or damage must be suffered (s 74D(1)(d).)

  1. "The purpose commonly bought"
  2. Regarding the purpose, Sackville J said that whether goods are bought for the purpose they are "commonly bought", is not the individual customer's subjective purpose in acquiring the goods but a broader enquiry regarding the normal use of the goods.

    He concluded that it was clear enough that the purpose (common to all the members), was to maintain a regular heart beat for patients experiencing electrical heart problems, and not the wider assertion that it was for the "comfort and assurance of the recipient subject to the ordinary risk of random failure".

  3. "Fitness for the purpose"

In discussing the fitness for purpose aspect, His Honour said that having regard to the s 74D(3) criteria, regard would have to be had to the three different groups discussed above, but in analysing the group with in situ failures, light would be shed on the other categories. He said that some caution must be exercised and he could not simply say that the pacemaker has not worked as it should and thus was unmerchantable. This is because all pacemakers are subject to a random risk of failure, a "background failure rate" which is normal to operation. This type of failure would not demonstrate lack of merchantable quality.

He stated that groups members must prove that:

    • the failed pacemaker was manufactured using yellow spool solder; and
    • he failure that occurred was not attributed to a cause unconnected with the use of yellow spool solder and the associated short circuit.

If these requirements were proven, the pacemaker was not fit for the purpose of restoring and maintaining heart beat as was reasonable to expect.

In this case, it was only the pacemakers subject to the Hazard Alert manufactured with yellow spool solder that were subject to a "superadded" risk of premature failure, over and above the background risk of failure, by reason of partial short circuits.

As the in situ pacemakers were subject to a significant "superadded" risk of premature failure by reason of the materials used in the manufacturing process, His Honour concluded that they were of unmerchantable quality.

On the point of the applicant's explanted, fully functional pacemaker, Sackville J held that despite it not failing prematurely in situ, the applicant's Pacemaker was not of merchantable quality this was despite the fact that it did not fail because it completed the "fitness for purpose" tests stated above, was manufactured with yellow spool solder, and thus subject to a risk of premature failure. The only difference between the groups would be regarding the quantum of loss and damage.

His Honour concluded that Mr Courtney's pacemaker was manufactured using material which subjected recipients to a materially increased risk of premature battery depletion, rendering the pacemaker was unmerchantable and unfit for purpose, despite the fact that the device continued to function normally.

Of relevance to this application, section 74A of the TPA provided that if goods were imported into Australia by a corporation that was not the manufacturer of the goods and that at the time of importation the manufacturer did not have a place of business in Australia, the corporation was deemed to have manufactured the goods. Medtel was thus liable to pay Mr Courtney damages for pain and suffering in addition to the expense incurred for a new device, and associated unreimbursed costs Medtel had offered to pay.

His Honour did not discuss s74B in any detail but concluded on the same reasoning that the goods were not fit for the purpose under s 74B as under s 74D.

It is somewhat alarming for manufacturers and importers, that although Mr Courtney's pacemaker worked perfectly well and in accordance with its specifications, it was still held to be unmerchantable and unfit for purpose.

An appeal against the judgment of Sackville J was dismissed by the Full Court of the Federal Court: Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney (2003) 198 ALR 630, per Moore, Branson and Jacobson JJ. The respondents applied for special leave to appeal the Full Court decision to our highest appellate court, the High Court of Australia, but leave was refused without published reasons.


The product liability landscape has changed significantly over the past decade and markedly so in recent years. State and Federal reform in the areas of common law negligence, including the passing of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), combined with the continuing limitation of personal injury claims under s52 of the TPA, means that the future of product liability litigation will be played out on different terms1. It appears likely that applicants will avail themselves of the alternative statutory causes of action provided by sections such as 74D (and 74B) of the TPA. Given the way in which section 74D is being interpreted judicially, this is of potential concern to manufacturers as these provisions may impose heavier burdens as a result of the more onerous strict liability standards being applied.


1 This Act encompasses both reforms to the manner in which claims of negligence can be proven, and significant limitations on the availability an amount of personal injury damages that a court can award.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.